AMHERST — University of Massachusetts officials acted reasonably and prudently in breaking up pro-Gaza encampments on campus last spring, but different enforcement tactics might have cut down on the number of arrests, as well as reduced the fraying of trust between students, faculty and staff and the UMass administration, according to an independent review released last week.

“Overall, the approach taken by the chancellor was marked by a certain amount of inflexibility, even though it was informed by understandable concerns for safety and precedent,” reads a portion of the report sought by UMass Chancellor Javier Reyes in June and then commissioned by the Office of the General Counsel for the university. “Decisiveness has its place, but so does flexibility.”

The 12-page executive summary of “Prince Lobel’s Report on Review of University of Massachusetts Amherst Response to Spring 2024 Gaza Protest Encampments,” published Jan. 13, was put together by Ralph C. Martin II, former Suffolk County district attorney and former general counsel for Northeastern University. The exact cost of the work is not yet known.

Martin and his team reviewed the interventions of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team and the risk assessments and administrative decisions that resulted in police engagement with protesters on April 29 and on May 7. Those protesters were in violation of the UMass land-use policy for putting up structures during their actions, including a fence.

“Without question, the administration perceived significant risks with the Second Encampment, most notably, from potential violence between counter-protesters and protesters,” the report states.

The report goes on to say that it was an understandable assessment of risks based on “chaos that was engulfing some other college campuses where encampments had been established,” but cautioned that UMass was different than what other campuses had seen. “Overall, we find that the dynamics of the UMass protest and counter-protest movements were unlike the comparators at Columbia University and UCLA. In making this finding, we fully recognize that we have the benefit of information and distance that the administration did not enjoy.”

Prince Lobel’s review included interviews with student leaders and UMass Police, among others, but the State Police commanders who led the contingent of troopers at UMass, and who conducted many of the physical arrests, declined to be interviewed.

The UMass officers indicated there was a “lack of communication and coordination” within and between the administration and UMass Police: “Some experienced officers within UMPD did not share the chancellor’s dire safety assessment of encampments in general. However, it cannot reasonably be disputed that there was some risk, and it was not negligible. Yet, there are also risks to health and well-being by having the police conduct a complex operation to arrest, transport and detain a large and dedicated group of assembled protesters, especially as their numbers increased during the evening.”

The report also notes that Reyes’ efforts to put an end to the encampment without arrests using an intervening session with students, and crafting a campuswide communication, ironically likely led to more people being taken into custody and being brought to the Mullins Center to be held for the night.

“The delay, which precipitated the assemblage of more protesters and police, likely resulted in many more arrests than would have occurred otherwise.”

The report references the damage done to the relationship between the administration and some of its constituents: “The trust between many students and the institution has been damaged and work to restore that relationship should be undertaken.”

Nearly 500 UMass faculty and librarians in May voted no confidence in Reyes following similar ones taken by the Student Government Association’s Senate and graduate student leaders.

Reyes sent an email to the community about the report the day it was released, noting it comes in advance of the spring semester and marks the second part of completing work that was announced last June, which included creation of a Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce.

“Building trust and transparency requires continual self-reflection and communication, both of which I remain fully committed to,” Reyes wrote.

Reyes references his endorsement of the recommendations of the task force’s 11-page report, which coincided with the beginning of the fall semester, and how these have either been enacted or are moving through the appropriate governing bodies. That report provided advice for how to best protect the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom to associate and remain in compliance with the campus picketing code.

These included giving the Demonstration Response and Safety Team an expanded role in promoting safety, education and deescalation at protests; clarifying the campus land-use policy by defining structures according to state law; and delineating the roles of university administrators and police when handling policy violations and illegal acts at demonstrations.

Reyes also applauds protesters and others who have stayed engaged through campus governing bodies, task forces and programs.

“I want to acknowledge how painful the memories of these events are for our campus and community,” Reyes wrote. “I hope we can use these findings, as I will, as an opportunity to learn and reflect. I also hope we can continue building a common ground and desire for mutual understanding, compassion and a way forward, even if we continue to disagree.”

The executive summary of the report can be found at umass.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/Spring2024-Report-Summary.pdf.

Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.